electronics

Review
Software-Defined Networking for Unmanned Aerial
Vehicular Networking and Security: A Survey
James McCoy and Danda B. Rawat *
Data Science and Cybersecurity Center (DSCC), Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science,
Howard University, Washington, DC 20059, USA; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-202-806-2209




Received: 20 September 2019; Accepted: 22 November 2019; Published: 3 December 2019


Abstract: Despite the immense benefits offered by the utilization of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
in civilian and military applications, significant work needs to be done to ensure that these systems
are able to securely communicate and resiliently operate to accomplish the mission. As the UAVs
grow with their popularity and usability for different applications, there is a dire need to ensure
that UAVs and their networks are capable of mitigating cyber-attacks on the fly. One approach that
has gained considerable popularity is Software-Defined Networking (SDN) based solutions. SDN is
a networking paradigm that has gained attention due to its dynamic flexibility to program networks
and increase network visibility, and its potential to assist in the mitigating security vulnerabilities
in the network including the network of UAVs. This article provides an overview of recent advances,
and current state of art related to security vulnerabilities and SDN enabled countermeasures. This
paper also presents a comparison of different approaches in a tabular form and a discussion of
challenges and future research directions with respect to UAV security.

Keywords: software-defined networking (SDN); unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) security

1. Introduction
In recent years, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have gained considerable popularity
with military, civilian, and public organizations for their diverse applications [1–4]. UAVs are currently
deployed for numerous mission types including investigations, border surveillance, delivery services,
traffic monitoring, and environmental monitoring. Most importantly, the military has used this
technology with the broad goal of leveraging its immense potential to improve national security for
sensitive combat missions. By 2035, the Department of Defense (DoD) expects that the percentage of
unmanned vehicles will to grow from 25% of their military fleet to approximately 70% [5]. The U.S.
military increased its investment in research and development of UAV technology from $2.3 billion
in 2008 to $4.2 billion in 2013 [6]. Moreover, Rani et al. [7] highlighted that the Federal Aviation
Administration estimated that by 2020, U.S. will have more than 30,000 drones actively operating in
the US airspace. The continued growth and innovation of UAV related technology has increased device
accessibility while concurrently making the device a more cost effective and powerful platform [7].
The continued growth and innovation of UAV related technology will allow for more accessible,
cheaper, and more effective unmanned systems [8]. Given the broad use of this technology one
emerging concern is security and reliability of the UAV communication networks. Many advancements
have been made in this technology but numerous challenges have to be addressed related to the ability
for the devices to communicate securely. Secure communication is increasingly becoming more
important because these devices are performing a central role in civilian and military operations.
Network vulnerabilities can result in unauthorized access to sensitive or critical mission information
ultimately posing a threat to National security. For example, in 2009, Iranian-backed Shiite militants

Electronics 2019, 8, 1468; doi:10.3390/electronics8121468 www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics

Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 2 of 25

hacked the live feed of a Predator drone using an online software called SkuGrabber, which allowed
insurgents access to the drone’s encrypted data [9,10]. Software-Defined Networks (SDNs) are
increasingly being explored to mitigate many network vulnerabilities. SDN is a networking technology
that provides programmability and network visibility for management and security [11] by separating
hardware, control, and data planes of the networking infrastructure. The separation of a network’s
control structure and communication infrastructure is replaced by a programmable control layer.
This layer allows the configuration of the network’s essential functionality [11,12]. The implementation
of SDN into UAV networking differs greatly from rest of the networks because of the network vector
and attack surfaces which are being attacked.
The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive review of SDN based security solutions
that have been adopted to mitigate UAV network attacks. Specifically, this paper focuses on mitigation
techniques that are based on SDN system and its capability to combat cyber attacks on UAV systems.
Note that there are several solutions based on SDN for general networks which are not included if those
approaches are not relevant to UAV networks. Although there are some related papers on UAV security
(for further details, please refer to Section 4), we present peer-reviewed security solutions on the rapidly
advancing research field of SDN enabled UAV networks. Specifically, the main contributions of this
paper include:

• Presenting a comprehensive study on security aspects of SDN enabled UAV networks.

• Presenting a summary of attacks and countermeasures for SDN enabled UAV networks in a tabular
form for a side-by-side comparison.
• Presenting a discussion of research challenges, recent trends, insights and open problems for SDN
enabled UAV security.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a brief historical overview
of notable advances inn UAV technology, Section 3 provides UAV network architecture and
communication. Section 4 discusses the SDN architecture and its security features. Section 5 presents
SDN implementation in UAV networks and followed by SDN enabled UAV network security in
Section 7. Section 8 discusses open research issues. Section 9 concludes the paper.

2. Brief Timeline of Advances in UAVs

Early interest in UAV systems was sparked as militaries were looking to develop battlefield
technologies. UAVs were first operationalized by the United States during the Vietnam War. The Air
Force program entitled Lightning Bug used early UAVs during tactical reconnaissance missions and
was dispatched nearly 3500 times during that period [5]. The success of this program is predicated upon
the ability for continued operations in war zones without risking the lives of pilots [13]. The expanded
use of UAVs allowed for missions to occur that were outside of human limitations (Gertler 2012).
Ongoing military operations in the Middle East sparked a renewed interest in UAVs with Isreal serving
as one of the first nations to deploy these devices regularly, demonstrating their effectiveness in combat
operations [14].
Civilian interest in UAVs lead to innovation in build material and increase flight durability in UAV
technologies [15]. Also, the development of fully autonomous flight technology allowed the military
to deploy military drones in military operations requiring lethal force [16]. The 11 September 2001
attack on the World Trade Center further pushed the drone technology as military operators sought to
leverage drone technology for counterterrorism operations. Following the attacks of September 11th,
UAVs have continued to maintain a central role function in military operations. The continued push
to implement technologies that are able to adapt to the current battlefield needs has lead to a class of
UAVs that maintain advanced capabilities but are increasingly becoming commercialized due to the
availability of the technology. Figure 1 presents a timeline of significant events in the growing use of
UAV technology.
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 3 of 25

Figure 1. Historical Timeline of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).

3. UAV Network Architecture and Communications

Section 3 dissects network architecture and communications and is sectioned in the following
manner. Section 3.1 details the UAV network architecture. Section 3.2 presents flying ad-hoc
networking and routing. The conclusion, in Section 3.3, explores communications in UAV networks
and vulnerability.

3.1. UAV Network Architecture

A typical UAV network architecture is shown in Figure 2. Data communication in UAVs along
with associated networks is highly important in that it ensures the active UAV devices operate as
intended to accomplish mission goals. The types of communication among UAV devices can be either
categorized as UAV to UAV (U2U) communication or UAV to Infrastructure (U2I) communications,
as shown in Figure 2. UAVs communication using U2U or U2I communications is critical since
it facilitates to meet the mission to be achieved by using UAVs for a wide array of applications such as
military, environmental, agricultural, commercial, and civilian applications. As UAV devices operate
in open wireless environments, UAV network suffers from interferences from others as well as security
attacks from adversaries.

Figure 2. A typical UAV networks with communication links with ground control station, aka Ground
Data Acquisition Unit (GAU) and satellite.
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 4 of 25

One necessary aspect of effective UAV communication is the ability of these devices to securely
communicate in an effective manner to meet the goal of the assigned mission. Collaborative
communication is regarded as an ability for UAVs to communicate with other UAV devices as
well as to the ground control stations, as shown in Figure 2. Moreover, effective UAVs should
be capable of acting as communication relay nodes which can connect flying ad hoc networks (FANET)
clusters. Within this network, the ability for UAV devices to serve as relay ensures communication
is always available using either single hop or multi-hop communications. UAVs acting as network
gateways provide connectivity to the infrastructure such as satellite or ground stations, or backbone
networks in the occurrence they are being used in distant geographic areas or areas distracted by
natural or man-made calamities. Other important requirements that facilitate seamless communication
in the UAV architecture are data processing, data storage, assisted sensing, and centralized control.
Since UAVs are pilot-less (no direct human operators on-board) and depend on the communication
and guidance of ground control stations or satellite station, it is necessary that communication networks
remain highly secure from potential network attack for resilient UAV operations. Communication
between UAVs and ground control stations are accomplished through a temporarily created UAV
gateway of the UAV network formed on the fly. However, the UAV network has several security
challenges given the frequently changing network topologies, network connectivity, and the high
mobility of UAVs.
UAV network security can be increasingly challenging as these devices operate in a dynamic
environment with significant resource constraints. Given this, security solutions for UAVs may
derive from resource issues such as limited communication bandwidth, computational capabilities,
and energy making wired networks such as Kerberos and transport layer security (TLS) impractical.
Mahmoud et al. [17], proposed a network architecture that can facilitate a secure communication
between UAVs and ground stations. The architecture is capable of supporting the specifications and
requirements of UAV networks where the architecture supports cryptographic primitives to secure
communication between airborne UAVs and ground stations.

3.2. Flying Ad-Hoc Network and Routing

UAVs equipped with computing, communication, storage and control devices form a flying ad hoc
network (FANET) to communicate with each another and with the infrastructure. The networking
layer is responsible for handling end-to-end routing of data packets being communicated through
the network. However, FANETs lack a central control and fixed topology, thus causing challenges
during the routing processes. As such, the choice of a suitable networking protocol for UAV to
UAV communication is dependent upon several factors [18]; the total number of UAVs in FANET;
different protocols provide excellent performance in small networks supporting few UAVs but
may not provide such performance in a large UAV network; the limited processing capabilities
implemented on-board; the routing protocol with limited processing and storage capabilities that can
handle complex calculations; storage capacity and on-board memory; some routing protocols need
a big storage space especially where mobile nodes are in large quantities; limited power and energy
capabilities in UAVs; routing protocols that are energy-aware are more suitable for small sized UAVs
compared to large UAVs; and heavily dependent on GPS capability (specially for geographic routing
protocols). Other important factors to consider are security and transmission robustness, roaming and
hand-off, connectivity to the backbone infrastructure network, degree at which UAVs are mobile,
and overall throughput of the FANET. Furthermore, Oubbati et al. [19], have pointed out that it is
a daunting task to design and develop an effective routing solution that ensures transferred data is
delivered to the intended recipients in a UAV environment. The challenges caused by the difficulties
of obtaining shortest connected and end-to-end pattern due to the high mobility of UAVs. Therefore,
Oubbati et al. [19], proposed routing protocol for overcoming the above-mentioned challenges once
implemented in FANETs of hightly mobile UAVs.
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 5 of 25

FANET is expected to have seamless communication using communications among UAVs

and ground stations which helps UAVs make informed decision while cooperating for a given
mission [20,21]. For instance, in scenarios that require an adaptive application due to the varying
nature of the missions, a real-time communication is needed to disseminate information and tasks
within the network. Therefore, a persistent network connection is needed to facilitate the dissemination
of information.

3.3. Communications in UAV Networks and Vulnerabilities

UAV communications suffer due to limited bandwidth. The work in [22] conducted a research
aiming to resolve the bandwidth disruptions associated with pre-measurement in a network thus
negatively impacting the performance in UAV networks for collecting crucial information such as
condition of war zone, weather patterns, etc. [22]. UAVs are expected to collect data and process
that data locally at UAVs or transfer that data to base stations to get the processed information back
to UAV. Transferring massive amounts of data consequently utilizing most of the bandwidth in the
network. This vulnerability invites security attacks (while data in motion) and other risks such as
network failure due to bottleneck because of limited bandwidth for data transfer. UAVs may also fail to
establish communication links with ground control stations leading to dangerous consequences for the
UAVs and the mission handled by those UAVs. The network latencies caused by UAVs or data transfer
may negatively impact the network’s security exposing the network to attacks such as buffer overflow
attacks, jamming attacks and distributed denial of service attacks (e.g., [22]). Furthermore, most UAVs
are dependent on remotely located humans for control and coordination. When the bandwidth is
inadequate, UAVs are likely to crash.

4. Software Defined Networking (SDN) Architecture and Its Features

This section provides software defined networking (SDN) architecture and its features for UAV
system. Section 4.1 describes a typical SDN architecture. Section 4.2 follows with SDN features for
network security.

4.1. A Typical SDN Architecture

The ideas that innovated into SDN have been around for over twenty years [11,23],
but the applications of SDN and improvements related to SDN are emerging every day. For example,
the General Switch Management Protocol (GSMP) released in 1996 by Ipsilon, the Tempest in 1998
by Cambridge, Forwarding and Control Element Separation (FORCES) protocol in 2000 by IETF and
Path Computation Element (PCE) in 2004 by IETF are some of the most critical milestones of SDN
development. PCE is a focused component for registering the way for the system hubs. Alongside
Openflow, it is one of the principle approaches towards SDN. Additionally, essential aspects include the
Routing Control Platform in 2004 by Princeton and a 4D (choice, dispersal, discovery, and information)
way to deal with division of control rationale from systems administration components, in 2005.
For some specialists, SDN began advancing when the ideas of SDN were first investigated in the
Ethane venture at Stanford University in 2007 [11,23]. Standardization of Openflow as the principal
correspondence interface for SDN by the Open Network Foundation in 2009 was the distinct advantage.
Since then there have been several advancements in SDN architecture and efficiency, and SDN based
security [11]. The overall promise of SDN is based upon the forwarding hardware decoupled from the
network control components [11], as shown in Figure 3. Specifically, SDN architecture consists of three
layers: application layer, controller layer, and infrastructure layer. Furthermore, the SDN controller
layer controls the overall network functions. This layered configuration simplifies the networking
paradigm and provides opportunities to improve network management practices. What is most
intriguing about this emerging networking paradigm that separates the networks control structure
from the underlying infrastructure layer [11,24]. The separation of the network’s control structure and
communication infrastructure has been replaced by a programmable control layer, allowing for the
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 6 of 25

configuration of the network’s behavior. In traditional networking systems, the network is responsible
for both the control and communication functions, which poses unique challenges as the infrastructure
and the packet control functions were interrelated.

Figure 3. A typical software defined networking architecture.

The network infrastructure layer of the SDN model is similar to more traditional networking
systems as it includes networking devices that are directly responsible for handling packet data
as opposed to having to deal with networking traffic as well as complicated software-centered
decisions [25]. The control layer is the intermediate layer between the network infrastructure layer and
the application layer [26] which controls networking functions via programmable APIs. The emergence
of programmable control interface such as OpenFlow has offered a variety of ways to handle network
functions. For the most part, innovations in the control layer allow users to directly control network
functionality. One benefit of having a programmable networking interface is that network control
becomes centralized and is optimized by operators to meet the direct needs of the application [11].
The application layer houses the business logic that determines how resources are utilized [11].
Applications which run on the SDN network structure are responsible for communicating and
controlling behaviors for programmatically controlling the network behaviors of the control layer. SDN
has been used for different applications encompassing energy efficiency, security, network visibility
through its ability to define a protocol stack [11,27–29]. Recently, there have been research works for
incorporating SDN for UAV networks to make the UAV network more flexible and assist in effective
functionality. By implementing SDNs in UAV networks, it is easier to deploy the UAV network which
facilitates the control and management of network services and applications.
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 7 of 25

4.2. SDN Features for Network Security

SDN has several features that are highly beneficial to network security including dynamic
control flow, centralized control providing visibility of the entire network, a simplified data plane,
and network programmability.
Dynamic Flow Control: The data plane of SDN has a flow rule for handling the traffic flows
in the network. As a result, a network application is capable of dynamically controlling the network
flows [29]. The ability to control network flows is beneficial to network security due to several
reasons. First and foremost, it makes it possible to implement control functions for providing dynamic
access thus protecting the network from third-party access [30]. SDN networks, unlike traditional
networks, have network devices such as OpenFlow switch capable of supporting SDN functions
used in access control. Moreover, SDNs facilitate in the control of network flows which allows for
increased granularity, enabling more efficient control of network flows. Furthermore, dynamic control
benefits network security as it permits the separation of suspicious network flows from benign network
flows [31]. For example, implementing an intrusion detection system in a traditional network will
lead to the detection of malicious flows but will require the use of other methods such as honeypot
systems to investigate the flows. Applying SDN as a network security measure eliminates the need for
third-party systems since through dynamically controlling the network function, it is possible to build
such a feature.
Increased visibility due to centralized control: The linking via the control plane allows disperse
networks to receive control instructions. The control plane sends query messages to all data
planes collecting the network information and status from all data planes [29]. Increased visibility
improves network security by providinground-the-clock monitoring [32]. In traditional networks,
effective monitoring would require the implementation of monitoring sensors in all network devices
or links, which might be a challenge in large networks. The leveraging of a holistic view of the
network facilitates the defense and detection of attempted network attacks. Greater insight allows
security practitioners to adopt an anomaly analysis enabling them to pinpoint attacks on any part
of the network. Also, the network-wide view leads to an improvement in utilizing security products
and devices by assigning particular network flows to the needed security appliances [33]. The holistic
view of the entire network provided for by the implementation of SDN leads to an understanding of the
particular routes network flows pass through facilitating the installation of various security appliances.
Simplified data plane: As previously noted, within an SDN architecture, the data plane is
separated from the control plane. As a result, the data plane can be controlled via user-defined
logic. The simplification of the data plane makes it possible to equip it with new features. For example,
in contrast with traditional network devices, the hardware of the network, that is the data plane,
of SDN networks can be modified with ease [34]. This is because the SDN’s data plane is separated
from the complex control pane, and as such, its hardware modules are relatively simple. This feature
makes it possible to modify the data plane and equip it with new network security features and
functions. The SDN data plane can also be extended to modify and suit specific security purposes.
Compared to other networking architectures, the data plane of SDN network can be modified to meet
the security needs of a network in the case a new form of threat or attack has been detected [35].
Other networks whose data planes are connected to the control plane contain a lot of complicated
modules rendering modifications impossible. The detection of new types of threats may warrant
the complete overhaul of the networks to equip them with data planes capable of handling such threats.
The simplicity of the data plane allows the addition of new security components which lead to the data
plane being more scalable and containing the latest security functionalities.
Network Programmability: The SDN has a programmable network such that it is possible to
program the network to operate various security functions [11,36]. This is a highly valued security
feature because, in traditional network systems, hardware middleboxes are deployed with predefined
network security functions. However, it is nearly impossible to modify the functions to suit a specific
security need. In some scenarios, the predefined security functions may not be adequate in mitigating
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 8 of 25

an identified security risk or an attack. However, the programmability feature offered by SDN
eliminates such problems by allowing the programming of various security functions with ease.
For instance, it is possible to create an application for scanning and detecting security vulnerabilities
in a network or to implement intelligent security applications in the network for detecting specific
attacks such as DoS/DDoS attacks [29]. Network programmability not only leads to improved network
security, but it is also cost effective in that it does not require the acquisition and deployment of new
security products, which is a huge benefit compared to security in traditional network architectures.
Implementing SDN for UAVs is beneficial since SDN provides programmable and elastic
network infrastructure which facilitate effective management of dissimilar protocols and overall
network visibility [37]. SDN has features which makes it the best network to be used in unmanned
aerial vehicles.

5. SDN Based UAV Network

Section 4 explores SDN based UAV network security vulnerabilities and the degree that SDN
based networks can be leveraged to minimize these
A typical SDN enabled UAV network is depicted in Figure 4. In SDN, the communication or
the interaction between the control layer and data link layer is commonly done using the OpenFlow
protocol. Openflow is a distinct communication protocol that allows the network’s forwarding
plane control over the networks switch or router functionality. Its broader flexibility and control
of the network and core functionality makes SDN attractive for overcoming many of the challenges
with managing an airborne network. The first challenge is that UAV devices relay considerable
information to either other UAV devices or the ground station such as the flight and control information
of the UAV, information of the protocol stack in the UAV network, sensory information of UAVs and
information obtained from the ground terminals. The next challenge with respect to managing UAV
networks is that UAVs operate as moving objects. Unpredictable movement patterns have direct
implications on the network’s topology and wireless connections. The expected fluidity of the network
produces another challenge that SDN seeks to overcome.

Figure 4. Typical components of a Software Defined Networking (SDN) based UAV network.
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 9 of 25

Several studies have highlighted the various ways that SDN can make UAV network more
secure. Packet delivery ratio by tuning network speeds in an SDN-based UAV network exceeds other
traditional ad hoc routing protocol [38]. Furthermore, SDN can adjust the UAV network topology in
prediction of future changes by using knowledge of physical relationships through SDN controller [38].
In the SDN based UAV network, UAVs implement SDN features and the ground station such as the
SDN controller as well as user equipment (UE) for control failures.
In the SDN-based UAV network, parameters of UAVs and network statistics are collected
by the SDN controller. After that, the final optimal decision is taken by utilizing the precise computed
results. The functional architecture of the UAV network is shown in Figure 5 with SDN controllers
for the UAV network. The UAV controller manages information such as physical location, battery
storage, and flight control and the SDN controller is to interact with the UAV controller and distribute
the information about UAVs network. When the SDN controller detects a poor wireless link state,
a message is sent to the UAV controller by the SDN controller. Then, the UAV adjusts the position with
the intention of having an improved and stable communication link according to the command of the
UAV controller. Significant strategies can be made based on the analysis and management of these
statistics, which are from the network and UAVs. As mentioned earlier, managing the vast bulk of
data is a problem.

Figure 5. Block diagram of UAV network architecture.

Moreover, the limited energy resources put constraints on communication duration and
performance. Therefore, the full utilization of energy sources is required. To solve this problem,
Mozaffari et al. [38] implemented a monitoring platform, as shown in Figure 6. The platform consists of
four modules: monitoring display, flow management, strategies, and link management. The monitoring
display module acts as the GUI to the user and provides system status to the user. The flow management
module controls network flow by creating a set of configuration parameters to dictate how network
traffic flows.
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 10 of 25

Figure 6. Architecture of Monitoring Platform for a UAV System.

Within this SDN architecture, packets are transmitted from one network endpoint to another.
These endpoints may be a TCP/UDP port and IP address, etc. Dynamical management of the link
load is done by the link management module by receiving updates from the UAV and other modules
into considerations. The strategy module is responsible for developing algorithms and protocols.
This development depends on the demand of the application. There are some other modules in this
architecture and they are responsible for collecting information and performing calculations. The work
of Mozaffari [38] focuses on the degree that SDN can solve many of the issues that were discussed
above as it pertains to traditional networks.

6. Cyber Attacks in UAV Networks and SDN-Based Countermeasures

Section 5 presents cyber attacks in UAV networks with a focus on SDN-based countermeasures.
The security in a UAV network is crucial and before implementing any security mechanisms,
it is essential to assess and analyze the network thoroughly. A full network assessment discovers
existing vulnerabilities guiding the most appropriate security mechanisms that could be implemented.
Lee et al. [39], posit that developing a full and systematic understanding of all attack surfaces
in emergent networks is a necessity and proposed implementing measures for making the network
more secure. Lee et al. [39] also argue that previous studies have been mostly dependent on ad-hoc
practical techniques when the different elements of SDN networks are evaluated using different
perspectives. These methods nevertheless fail to provide a systematic methodology nor do they provide
automated systems that can be used to conduct rigorous security assessments in SDN networks and
identify security flaws. However, with the recent research advancements in the SDN, it hasemerged a
promising technology to provide solutions for security concerns. Table 1 presents the SDN mitigation
solutions discussed below.
A basic architecture of SDN networks has a control plane which detects the malfunctioning of
targeted networking or sensing devices of UAV networks. Subsequently, the SDN’s control plane
mitigates impacts caused by sensor or actuator attacks by sending a set of instructions to the nodes
of the affected UAV network from the SDN controller. The SDN controller identifies the nodes that
have been injected with false or corrupt data and instruct the unaffected nodes to stop communication
or route any messages from the affected nodes. This mechanism reduces vulnerability and possible
impacts of the attacks on UAV networks.
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 11 of 25

Table 1. SDN Based Security Countermeasures.

SDN-Based Attack
Attack Type Pros and Cons
Mitigation
Pros:
+ Efficient Detection of denial of services attacks
+ Achieves Optimal Network effectiveness
Packet Flow
DDoS Cons:
Analysis [40]
- Imposes an overhead to network usage performance
- Also imposes overhead to network access

Pros:
+ Light weight detection protocol based on entropy variation analysis
+ Efficient detection rate over packet flow rate
Machine Learning
DDoS Cons:
algorithms [41]
- Can only detect single host target attacks
- Lacks support for multi host support mechanism

Pros:

Resilient Control + Minimizes the sharing of critical resources of network

DDos + Minimizes the control traffic
Network [42] + Dynamic feedback from each individual node
+ Makes network more resilient to use

Pros:
+ High number of control plane capacity
+ High data plane capacity to ensure maximum network utilization
Scotah: tool uses + Also supports third party integration
DDos overlay based on
Cons:
vSwitch [43]
- Algorithm learning rate is very low
- Perform real time efficiency glitches

Pros:
+ This model is efficient in learning abilities for small samples
+ It is capable of generalizing from noisy and redundant data
ANN based
DDos Cons:
algorithm [44]
- Algorithm learning rate is very low
- Perform real time efficiency glitches

Pros:
+ Reduces the amount of routing traffic
+ Can predict the network structure change
Packet Flow Analysis
DDos Cons:
and filtering [45]
- Makes network less flexible
- Requires a lot of additional resources adding more cost

Pros:
+ Imposes resiliency of network
Network + Reduces the outage rate of end-end communications
Jamming Management Cons:
Protocol [46]
- Imposes enhanced utilization of network energy sources
- Lacks mobility and other different traffic patterns

Pros:
+ Work well with attack detection and mitigation
+ Provide the fault free services
Network Parameter
Jamming Cons:
Analysis [47]
- Proposed models lacks protocol flexibility
- Only works well with the known type of attacks
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 12 of 25

Table 1. Cont.

SDN-Based Attack
Attack Type Pros and Cons
Mitigation
Pros:
+ Efficient in communication and memory
SDN based + Improved support for attack detection probability in real time scenarios
Clone Attacks collaborative RED
Cons:
Protocol [48]
- Adds extra overhead to the network

Pros:
+ Support for threat detection mechanism
+ Performs better than other existing approaches for attack detection in
Energy
SDN based efficiency
Consumption + Robust against communication loss by using multi-path routing scheme
Collaborative Rule
and Clone
Enforcement [49] Cons:
Attacks
- Latency score for proposed model is low
- Adds extra overhead to the network

Pros:
+ Balances the load of nodes and reduces the network congestion
Spoofing GPS position finder + Supports the wireless network mesh & SDN protocols
Attack algorithm [50] Cons:
- No identification of optimal specifications

Pros:
+ This model also prevents the network controller from saturation and cache
misses attacks
Spoofing Node Configuration + Enables the system to handle the attack efficiently
+ Works well only with known definitions of attacks
Attack Restoration [51]
Cons:
- Does not work well with attack type detection and mitigation

However, apart from these attacks, DDoS attacks on UAV networks often lead to native device
disruptions. DDoS attacks enable adversaries to execute digital update rate attacks on the UAV
device [40]. UAV devices equipped with the autopilot options have digitized computers in a way
that allows all inputs sent through the UAV network to be discretized. DDoS attacks on UAV
networks can be mitigated by using SDN networks. Compared to traditional networks, SDN networks
provide network visibility which allows the SDN controller to monitor ongoing network activity
and identify instances of DDoS attacks [52]. The additional visibility allows the controllers and
switches of SDN to be able to recognize attributes of packet level data being transmitted through
the network. As a result, the ability to recognize and classify incoming data packet inputs enables
the SDN controller to determine data packet streams in the DDoS attack and can mitigate this attack via
traffic offloading or automated blocking of the instances of DDoS attacks [53]. Also, as DDoS attacks
usually target the protocol behaviors of UAV devices, the presence of SDN networks in a UAV network
identifies DDoS attacks aimed at disrupting protocol behavior and limits the connection aimed at UAV
device protocols.
As previously noted [40], due to the separation of the control plane and the data plane, most of
the SDN mitigation techniques for DDoS attacks have focused on analyzing network patterns.
The technique as advocated by [40] examines network flow patterns to detect abnormal network
patterns. To solve such problems associated with poor network performance and network degradation
during high network traffic periods, Wang [43] proposes a solution which enables the network to
scale up to better control high traffic loads. Scotch, is a tool which uses an overlay based on vSwitch,
to allow for elastically scaling up the capacity of SDN control plane. Scotch was designed to utilize
take advantage of the high capacity of the data plane. The scalability factor allows the SDN to scale
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 13 of 25

to increase resilience under abnormal traffic surges such as DDoS attacks as well as under regular
traffic surges seen during flash crowds. Moreover, Scotch utilizes the high capacity of the data plane to
accommodate a large amount of VSwitches thus enabling it to scale the capacity of SDNs.
Another SDN network mitigation solution focuses on the implementation of machine learning
algorithms to provide automated protection against DDoS attacks. The work of [41] leverages
a machine learning algorithm to detect a DDoS attack by calculating the entropy of the destination
IP address via the SDN controller. A DDoS attack is determined when the entropy value rises above
the expected threshold.
The work of [42] also focuses on mitigating DDoS attacks in UAV devices has been proven
viable [42]. The authors propose the Resilient Control Network (ReCON) solution, which leverages
SDN resources to defend the network’s control plane from being affected by DDoS attacks.
ReCON seeks to minimize the critical resources shared to control traffic and data flows. Furthermore,
ReCON can further elastically increase the limited capacities of all the software control agents. ReCON
increases the abilities in real time by using the resources least utilized within the same SDN dynamically.
However, to implement and evaluate a practical solution, Gillani [42] designed ReCON as a solution
for problems associated with constraint satisfaction through the use of the Satisfiability Modulo Theory.
This theory guarantees control plane placement based on an accurate construction which handles any
dynamic network changes.
The work of [44] also seeks to leverage machine learning algorithms to better secure the SDN
network. The authors use artificial neural networks (ANN) to implement genetic algorithms to make
intelligent decisions regarding network traffic. By equipping SDN networks with support vector
machine algorithms to allow the network to classify networking traffic using machine learning directly.
Jamming attacks pose a significant threat. Jamming attacks target communication and surveillance
components of the UAV device which has implications for the relay of information [54]. For example,
jamming attacks are used to perpetrate Automatic Detection Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).
An ADS-B attacks components implemented in a UAV is used for navigating UAV devices during
the course of a mission. Cyber adversaries use jamming attacks to block an airborne UAV device
from communicating with the legitimate control station. Jamming attacks on UAV networks are also
able to target the navigational systems and impede their ability to connect to the Global Positioning
Systems (GPS) therefore, disrupting critical navigation guidance [55]. This attack also has implications
for disrupting the UAV devices ability to operate on autopilot or deliver critical payload information.
If an adversary launches a jamming attack to block communication against UAV network, the SDN
controller can detect the cause of the disruptions [47]. Seciniti [46] proposed a network management
protocol that leverages a multi-layer graph model which can evaluate various communication
pathways as a means of enhancing resilience in connectivity. This proposed implementation ensures
that UAV devices seeks to increase UAV resilience to jamming attacks.
Another attack that can be perpetrated against UAV devices is cloning attacks. A cloning attack is
where an adversaries capture a UAV device operating within the network and reprogram the device.
This re-programmes the device and assists in perpetuating additional attacks against the network [48].
This attack can affect additional nodes as membership to the network can allow it access to legitimate
pieces of information, therefore aiding in the attack process. Clone attacks require early detection of
these affected nodes to secure the network from malicious activities [56]. However, these attacks are
crucial in their nature as their existing solutions for these attacks demands more energy resources [57].
Researchers have sought ways to provide early detection of clone devices to ensure secure network
reliability [48,56,57].
An early detection mechanism includes the witness-based detection system in which each device
is required to send proper identification concerning a set of coordinates, therefore acting as a witness
for the device. This solution is based upon the fact that each device should maintain the same
identification ID but different positions. When more than one node sends the same ID with different
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 14 of 25

position information, the clone attack is detected [57–60]. However, these approaches are not as
efficient because these devices have limited storage, computational capacity and power resources [57].
Meanwhile, data transfer in more extensive networks requires data aggregation to reduce
communication overhead and energy consumption. Roy et al. [49], proposed a loss resilient model
named synopsis defusion. Synopsis defusion uses the duplicate insensitive algorithm to aggregate
on the top of routing schemes. However, this model lacks the better clone attack as these models
do not address the sub-aggregation of malicious nodes in the network under attack. Also, the work
of [61] proposes using the programmable open flow switches in the router to allow for more dedicated
and secure communication channels. This model enables the nodes to drop the malicious packets by
analyzing them to curb the smart adversaries [62].
Cloning attacks in distributed environment where the route for common node and witness node
is distributed, ensuring the credibility witness node can be problematic [48]. For distributed networks,
Conti et al. [48], proposed a randomized, efficient and distributed protocol for node replication
attacks. This protocol starts by identifying the nodes and monitoring its data flow. This protocol
randomly decides the witness based of network-wide seeds and the notion that if the adversary knows
the location of the witness nodes, then it can subvert security protocols making clone attack detection
more challenging [56].
Another proposed solution to mitigate vulnerabilities introduced via malfunctioning devices
in the network can be reverted by leveraging SDN. The SDN control plane can detect malfunctioning
nodes then transmit the information with respect to the ordinary device nodes over the network [63].
Concerning the solution proposed by [63], the controller detects the node as either disrupting or
untrusted and instructs other nodes to cut off communication with the identified device. Apart from
this, the SDN controller can also instruct the nodes to ignore the data being transmitted by these cloned
nodes in typical ad-hoc environment [63].
Spoofing is a also common attack perpetrated against UAV networks. Spoofing is where input
data is manipulated for malicious purposes. For example, spoofing attacks on UAV devices can lead
to improper execution of gain scheduling attacks. With this attack, Cyber adversaries can launch
scheduled attacks with the intent of gaining complete control of UAV systems. The authors of [64]
point out that UAVs require various sensors to perform properly, allowing for full usage of UAVs.
Spoofing attacks can also be executed against device functions needed for auto-piloting. These attacks
not only impact specific UAV sensor functions but could also impact the UAV as a whole.
SDN-based solutions for mitigation spoofing attacks are used to ensure that sensor activity can
continue despite being targeted. The SDN architecture facilitates implementation of storage solutions
that support network data to be backed up from the device. Once the UAV device has been targeted,
the SDN controller can be programmed to override all the compromised controls using the data from
the storage backup [51]. Moreover, the SDN controllers allow for continuous monitoring of UAV
networks for signs of spoofing intrusions to allow the deployment of preventive measures to preserve
the UAV network before being fully compromised.
In [50], notes that networks are equipped with a GPS position finder algorithms that assist
in recovering disabled or disconnected network devices using spatial clustering based on density.
The algorithm calculates the most appropriate position of one or more mobile devices are actively
deployed, then the affected network connection will be restored within the shortest period.
The proposed method also assists in improving communication performance.

7. SDN Enabled UAV Security

Section 7 peels back the layers of SDN enabled UAV security. Section 7.1 speaks to confidentiality
attacks on UAV networks. Section 7.2 speaks to integrity attacks on UAV networks. Closing with
Section 7.3, which speaks to the availability attacks on UAV networks.
The dynamic nature of UAV network topology makes the security of the SDN system very crucial
issue among other key challenges in UAV networks. This section focuses on SDN enabled secure
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 15 of 25

solutions for UAV networks. To aid in the categorization of the solutions we present the solutions by the
following categories: Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability in the following sections and Table 2.

Table 2. SDN Mitigation Solutions.

SDN Solution SDN Enabled UAV

Pros and Cons
Class Security Solutions
Pros:
+ Faster and more efficient coverage area coverage through dense
regions area
+ Simple flow based technique
Availability UAV as a Servi [65]
Cons:
- Solution requires scale to be truly effective
- Solution tested using simulation testing

Pros:
+ Efficient Detection of Denial of Services attacks
Proposed SDN/OODA + Achieves Optimal Network effectiveness
Availability Networking Cons:
Architecture [66]
- Imposes an overhead to network usage performance
- Also imposes overhead to network access

Pros:
+ Proactive routing allows for strengthened connections during rapid
movement
Temporospatial Software + Maintains topology knowledge of global network (both current and
Availability Defined Networking predictive) for increased reliability
(TS-SDN) [37] Cons:
- Routing is limited due to the lack of addressing hierarchy
- Inability to mitigate against Line-Of-Sight disruptions

Pros:
+ Modular mitigation approach allowing for rapid innovation and
deployment
SDN/NFV Integrated + Integrates network monitoring tools for real-time device
Availability Monitoring notifications
Architecture [67] Cons:
- Solution effectiveness informed by UAV device limitations
- Limited testing data/scenarios for implementation

Pros:
+ Efficient Detection of denial of services attacks
+ Achieves Optimal Network effectiveness
SDN/OODA Integrated
Availability Cons:
Platform [68]
- Imposes an overhead to network usage performance
- Also imposes overhead to network access

Pros:
+ Efficient Detection of denial of services attacks
Mobility Model for + Achieves Optimal Network effectiveness
Availability Multi-UAV WSN Cons:
networks [69]
- Imposes an overhead to network usage performance
- Also imposes overhead to network access

Pros:
+ Controller placement allows for a reduction in network overhead
Large scale UAV nodes in Cons:
Availability
network [70]
- Tradeoff exist between the end to end delay and control packet
communication overhead
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 16 of 25

Table 2. Cont.

SDN Solution SDN Enabled UAV

Pros and Cons
Class Security Solutions
Pros:
+ Provides energy efficient operations by taking the energy limitations
of the nodes into account
+ Provide prevention of network death routes and failures
+ Enhances the quality of the video transmissions over the UAV
Large scale UAV nodes in network
Availability + Shows better network resilience by enable the nodes to live for
network [21] longer life.
Cons:
- Shows fluctuation in the percentage of remaining battery for the
nodes due to UAV node replacement schemes

Pros:
+ Controller placement allows for a reduction in network overhead
Large scale UAV nodes in Cons:
Availability
network [71]
- Tradeoff exist between the end to end delay and control packet
communication overhead

Pros:
+ Provides the multipath TCP communication over the heterogeneous
networks
+ More reliable network in comparison to single path TCP networks
regarding the handling of the rapid handoffs in the network
+ SDN controller is enable to adjust the locations of UAV nodes
Multi-tier mesh UAV dynamically
Availability + Robust system to handle link congestions and more bandwidth
network [71]
utilization
Cons:
- The proposed solution adds additional overhead for the network to
process
- adds additional overhead on the network

Pros:
+ Provides the multipath TCP communication over the heterogeneous
networks
+ More reliable network in comparison to single path TCP networks
regarding the handling of the rapid handoffs in the network
+ SDN controller is enable to adjust the locations of UAV nodes
Multi-tier heterogeneous dynamically
Availability
UAV networks [72] + Robust system to handle link congestions and more bandwidth
utilization
Cons:
- Solution adds additional overhead for the network
- adds additional overhead on the network

Pros:
+ collaborative decision making by using SDN and UAV flight
controller
Dyna-Q-based + Higher learning rate for the attack detection
Availability reinforcement learning + collaborative tracking and optimization against jamming attacks
algorithm [73] Cons:
- Dyna-Q environment is difficult to build and implement
- Adds additional overhead to the network for communication
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 17 of 25

Table 2. Cont.

SDN Solution SDN Enabled UAV

Pros and Cons
Class Security Solutions
Pros:
+ resilient framework against faulty nodes, and intrusion in the
network
SDN-Based Secure Mobility + enhance network throughput and coverage for multiple UAVs
Availability + the hybrid model reduces the latency for the UAVs communication
Model
Cons:
- Tradeoff between network coverage and position accuracy

Pros:
+ the models displays high detection rate for large scale UAV network
+ low number of false positive detections for network traffic
Hierarchical Detection and + resilient model against grey hole, spoofing and jamming attacks
Availability
Response Scheme [74] Cons:
- adds additional overhead and latency into the network
- tradeoff between efficiency in energy and security

Pros:
+ resilient model for false node injection and eavesdropping attacks
+ only authorized and authentic nodes can join the network
+ security solutions for major cyber-attacks by means of flexible and
SDN/OODA Integrated programmable central SDN controller in the UAV network
Availability
Platform [68]
Cons:
- adds additional overhead of node verification and authentication
- displays high latency for the UAV nodes’ communication

Pros:
+ adoption of Dijkstra algorithm to assist with calculating diverse
paths for optimal routing
+ efficient model for the reconfiguration of isolated nodes by the
SD-UAV Networking means of SDN controller
Architecture which + model treats every node as SDN switch for better reconfiguration
Availability and dynamic switching
leverages Various Wireless
Link Technologies [46] Cons:
- only consistent with the modern wireless communication standards
- adds additional overhead on the network for average end-to-end
link outages

Pros:
+ resilient model for the network jamming attacks
+ weighted routing metrics for data flow in the network
+ resiliency for end-to-end link outages
SDN Based Weighted Cons:
Availability
Routing Framework [75]
- adds additional overhead for network
- adds additional latency for the nodes in the network
- tradeoff between latency and efficiency over contemporary
competing approaches

Pros:
+ collaborative decision making by using SDN and UAV flight
controller
+ Higher learning rate for the attack detection
Aerial Network + collaborative tracking and optimization against jamming attacks
Availability
management protocol [46]
Cons:
- complexity in architecture implementation
- adds additional overhead on the network
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 18 of 25

7.1. Confidentiality Attacks on UAV Networks

The UAV devices allow for the transference of data from the sensors and transmit it towards
legitimate/secure control stations. These communication channels can also be directed towards
the other UAV devices. However, the data being transmitted should be confidential. This class address
the confidentiality of the data to prevent it from malicious users who intend to access it. Malicious
actors can reveal the moving orbit information based on the data that they can leak from the active
traffic transmissions.

7.2. Integrity Attacks on UAV Networks

Integrity refers to protect the data from being modified or deleted by an unauthorized user.
These attacks target the data being transmitted in the UAV network. Device data transmissions differ
based upon the mission type. UAV devices which focus on surveillance and other monitoring services
are responsible for transferring data to ground control stations. In these attacks, the malicious attackers
usually aim to inject the false information or to corrupt the original message.

7.3. Availability Attacks on UAV Networks

This class of attacks usually targets several UAV networking layers specifically the physical
and networking layer of the system. Generally, these classes can be understood as those attacks
which seek to make the device unavailable for intended purposes. When targeted at the networking
layer, the adversary can manipulate the routing protocols and disrupt the network communication by
making it disconnected for the devices in the network. Meanwhile, on the physical layer, these attacks
can be launched by an attacker to jam and to interfere with the communication channels.
In the above sections, we have defined the classes of solutions to which we leverage
in the article. As previously noted, Table 2 presents the SDN enabled solutions for increased security
in UAV networks.
Yapp et al. [65] proposed a simulated environment to perform analysis and testing for UAV as
a Service integration. They accomplished this by using off-the-shelf frameworks similar to Flight
Gear and Ardupilot’s Software to simulate real world UAV hardware, in addition to web services and
messaging APIs such as RabbitMQ and Java Spring Framework to simulate UAVaaS cloud coordinator
and client functionality. The simulation environment was leveraged to conduct further research
into the network performance and security issues associated with UAV as a Service configurations.
They identified five primary actors who would be interacting with the UAVaaS system: operators,
spectators, emergency services personnel, UAV ground crew personnel, and third party UAV vendors.
In the article, Barritt [37] presents an application that operates within UAV networks known as
temporal-spatial Software Defined Networking (TS-SDN). As UAVs need wireless communication
to allow for an expanded range, reactive repair is relatively costly in comparison to other terrestrial
applications, especially when you consider the mechanical considerations for the system. TS-SDN
architecture focuses on leveraging proactive routes. Proactive routing allows for programmed
pathways to be adjusted in advance of temporary handovers or events that may disrupt a routing path.
The ability for routes to be adjusted serves as a mitigation technique if the device or devices experience
network attacks. Furthermore, this is a significant advantage as it allows for an increase in availability
for the UAV network.
White et al. [67] highlight the centrality of telemetry analysis in UAV link communication. To assist
in attack mitigation and network analysis, the authors propose a networking architecture which
integrates SDN and Network Function Virtualization (NFV). NFV allows for the development of
network-based tools that can aid in securing data communication networks. The authors use configured
NFV route traffic based upon routing configuration. When anomalies are detected, functions can be
deployed to assist in the mitigation of potential attacks. Furthermore, the platform uses notifications
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 19 of 25

to enhance the real-time awareness of the platform. Notifications are sent to the pilot if the UAV
functionality moves outside of specific predictable ranges.
Mishra et al. [66], proposed integrating oriented Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act (OODA)
principals into the SDN controller to allow for improved situational awareness during coalition
operations. Coalition operations are operations which involve multiple coalition forces. The authors
implement the security situational awareness as a OODA loop in the SDN network. This architecture
allows for the integration of multiple military networks to increase collaboration between coalition
networks. Within this solution, the OODA loop is responsible for assessing the information and
coordinating that information regarding security threats via REST interface. The mitigation ability of
this solution is based on its ability to share information regarding UAV network attacks with coalition
members. This enhances the ability to mitigate network attacks based upon the sharing of information
to reduce vulnerabilities in real time. The proposed architecture allows for integrated insight into
attacks via mitigation and attack information shared across the coalition network.
Mishra et al. [68], proposed a model that incorporates the SDN controller as part of the support
infrastructure for the network. The nodes that wish to join the network share the credentials
for the authentication to keep the network intact from various malicious and false node dissemination
attacks. The controller SDN is leveraged in way that it responses quickly with the fed credentials
and also provides the security policies for the node and derivations of the operations of the node
in the network. The controller is also equipped for the traffic control and routing for the data flow
in the network [68].
On the contrary, the node must inform the controller how to gracefully exit the network, to ensure
the integrity of the network topology. Furthermore, the rapid change in network topology via the
multi-hop communication channels operates dynamically as communication follows between peers
and internal nodes. The resilience in these solutions minimizes the impact of complex outages.
Kumar et al. [69], proposed a model that evaluates the density of the network and authenticates
the data flow in the network. The proposed model maps the network into a matrix and divides
them into sectors. Nodes which fall into a particular section are considered as the default node.
A statistical model is then incorporated to determine the controller and the cluster head. The controller
is responsible for monitoring the flow of the data for the authentication and coordination of the nodes
residing in the network. This novel mobility model is helpful for the way-point secure transmission of
the data. Additionally, they were able to enhance the throughput and coverage of the network.
Rehman et al. [70] proposed a scheme aimed at reducing the overhead by control packets. The key
finding of this study is that, if the controller is placed in a way that number of hops remains low,
the overhead faced by control packets is reduced. However, the author has argued that there exists
a tradeoff between the control overhead and end-to-end delay of the packets.
Moradi et al. [71] proposed a framework in which he discussed the network of Evolved Packet
Core (EPC) and Radio Access Network (RAN) for UAV. The EPC module consist of the control plane
and data plane. The data plane in his proposed framework is responsible for imposing operator policies
on the data traffic flow. The direction of flow can be to/from user equipment. However, the control
plane is responsible for maintaining key roles such as access control, mobility reconfiguration and
security definitions enforcement to prevent the network from several wide spectrum attacks.
Zhao et al. [72] proposed a SDN based framework for special UAV networks such as ships and
shore nodes. The author argues that preexisting approach are heavily dependent on the satellite
communication which uses the single path TCP for reliable non-interactive data transmission.
However, the challenges faced by single path TCP can be resolved by using multipath TCP to improve
the overall throughput and reduce the handover delays for the networks. However, the proposed
solution uses the centralized SDN controller which uses the OpenFlow on top of it to make the proposed
model more robust in response to attacks and security management.
Pu et al. [54], present a multipath routing protocol to allow for more efficient data transmission
and increasingly reliable communication. During the occurrence of jamming attacks, in FANETs
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 20 of 25

the network resiliency is also improved. To differentiate the link qualities between a node and
its neighbor nodes, the link quality scheme is proposed by using the statistical information of
received signal strength indication of received packets. The authors present an analytical model
and its numerical result in terms of RREP packet reception rate of source node. They modify three
representative routing protocols, which are dynamic source routing (DSR), optimized link state routing
(OLSR), and split multipath routing (SMR), to work in FANETs for performance comparison.
Sedjelmaci et al. [74] advocated for a novel intrusion detection and response system model which
detects the network intrusion aimed to undermine the efficiency of the network. The proposed model
classifies node behaviors normal, abnormal and malicious behavior. After the node’s behavior is
organized, the framework incorporates Support Vector Machine (SVM) enables the module to verify
the attack detection at the ground station. The author has conducted various experiments to emphasize
the simulation results which depict the model’s efficiency to detect the attacks on the large scale density
of the network [74].
Secinti et al. [46], proposed a hybrid model for the UAV network communication that establishes
the SDN framework on the top of the network architecture. Regarding communication, it is increasingly
challenging due to multiple interfaces at the current time. The overall directives for the nodes in the
network are set by the controller to ensure network integrity. The controller then derives the operations
for each node residing on the network while also serving as an SDN switch. To determine if the
network was affected, if a node gets isolated or collapses, the controller calculates the most dynamic
and flexible routing paths for the data flow. This proposed model also incorporates the OpenFlow 1.5
protocol on each UAV node for quick switching for the dynamic routing based on the flow pattern set
by the centralized controller [46].
In another study, Secinti et al. [75] proposed a framework that integrates the SDN controller to
ensure robust communication over the UAV network. In this proposed model, the controller develops
a connectivity graph of the UAV nodes on the network by leveraging the location coordinates to
determine the availability of the node. Once established, the controller calculates the shortest path for
the UAV nodes while making sure that every discovered route entails the UAV node had previously
connected to an already discovered routing path. This process of route finding is accomplished
by the reviewing node participation in relation to routes that operate in a wider networking range.
Zhiwei Li et al. [73] propose a dual framework for solving these smart jamming attacks by using
the SDN and UAV. The proposed model works on the collaborative decision making function by using
the means of SDN controller and UAV flight controller. These hybrid controller are responsible for
collecting the state information about the network which is further used by Dyna Q based reinforcement
learning model. This learning model learns about the network state and take decision about the power
allocation and derive the defense strategies to mitigate the smart jamming attacks.
Pedro Cumino et al. [21] proposed a hybrid framework using cooperative UAV approach and
SDN named as VOEI. VOEI is equipped with decision making by considering the energy limitations of
the UAV nodes to prevent the energy related issues of the nodes, network access issues, route failures,
and enhances the quality of video transmissions. These operations are done by using the flexibility of
the SDN on the top of the nodes architecture to separate the data and control plane thus giving more
flexibility and programmability to the network on the fly. VOEI can be very helpful due to the fact
that SDN controller takes into account the information of the network to develop more reliable energy
routes for better data transmission which is loss pruned in real time. In this framework, the controller
is responsible for reliable calculation along with the UAV nodes’ backup to keep the network execution
smooth even some damage occurs to the network. However, to share the information of the network
with the controller, the nodes exchange the control packets with the controller. This exchange of
packets can impose additional overhead on the network.
The above solutions seek to highlight the SDN enabled UAV network security solutions which
have been used to mitigate network vulnerabilities within the UAV networks. One notable point from
our study is that most of the solutions mentioned in our study focused on making this network more
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 21 of 25

resilient to disruptions. What is clear based upon our study results, is that additional work needs to
be done to further explore the SDN architecture and its ability to secure UAV networks outside of its
availability. In the next section, we will discuss open issues related to the field of UAV network security.

8. Open Issues and Research Perspectives

In this section, we present some open issues and research perspectives for SDN-based solutions
for cyber attacks in UAV networks.
Previous sections show the SDN with its features, UAV networks and SDN based solutions for
cyber attacks in UAV networks. However, the proposed integration is the first attempt and is in its
early stages, thus creating several opportunities to be addressed before SDN reaches its full potential.
SDNs also have some limitations when they are implemented in UAV devices. The limitations and
challenges include: difficulty identifying the most appropriate route for UAV devices, SDNs cause
frequent link disconnections, UAV devices can be disrupted intentionally, and onboard resources may
not be accessed [46]. We discuss key open issues below:
Handling delay and big data. The data produced by UAVs is expected to be huge which is then
used to make informed decisions. However, processing of the huge data at resource constrained UAV
devices could lead to sub-optimal point or offloading of the huge data to the ground station could lead
to extra delay. Thus, a federated framework with context-aware offloading could help reduce delay
while handling big data in the proposed architecture.
In an SDN-enabled UAV network, SDN controllers plays a vital role in making decision for the
UAV networks. Based on the current state of the art, it is hard to find research work that focuses
on integration issues; however, fusion leads to flexible UAV networks while providing robust security.
When a centralized SDN controller is used to make decisions about the UAV networks, the system
could suffer from bottleneck or single point of failure. Thus, architecture should incorporate some
redundancy to provide fault tolerance. Finding the optimal number of SDN controllers for a given
UAV network is worthy of further investigation.
As the usage of UAVs continue to grow, the degree that these devices can operate securely
in a populated metropolitan environment that is increasingly becoming connected. Research should
continue to explore how SDN technology can assist in ensuring that UAVs can operate securely
in a populated metropolitan environment.
Finally, the context-aware offloading schemes should be developed by incorporating machine
learning techniques with edge computing for predictive solutions for cyber defense in UAV networks.

9. Conclusions
In UAV networks, communication in UAVs is perhaps the most fundamental property of their
diverse use, including civilian and military applications. Ensuring that these UAV devices are capable
of securely transmitting data to both UAVs and ground infrastructures, is one of the critical issues.
For our study, we have reviewed common cyber-attacks such as DDoS, jamming, device cloning and
spoofing and their respective solutions. We have presented different approaches that are available
in the state of the art literature and have compared them side-by-side based on their pros and cons
in a tabular form. Because of the highly dynamic nature of UAVs and UAV network topology,
traditional cyber-defense solutions are not applicable in a straightforward manner. Overall, additional
research and development should focus on leveraging the flexibility of the SDN architecture to
automate the detection of networking attacks. Of all of the cyber attacks discussed, most of the research
has focused on mitigating DDoS attacks. The intersection of machine learning algorithms to mitigate
networking attacks has seemed to provide the most promise.

Author Contributions: This survey articles was the result of contributions from all authors more or less equally.
Funding: This work is partly supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) under grants CNS
1650831 and HRD 1828811, and by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under grant award number,
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 22 of 25

2017-ST-062-000003. However, any opinion, finding, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies,
either expressed or implied, of the funding agencies (NSF and DHS).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Rango, A.; Laliberte, A.; Steele, C.; Herrick, J.E.; Bestelmeyer, B.; Schmugge, T.; Roanhorse, A.; Jenkins, V.
Using unmanned aerial vehicles for rangelands: current applications and future potentials. Environ. Pract.
2006, 8, 159–168. [CrossRef]
2. Grodi, R.; Rawat, D.B. UAV-assisted broadband network for emergency and public safety communications.
In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing (GlobalSIP),
Orlando, FL, USA, 14–16 December 2015; pp. 10–14.
3. Rawat, D.B.; Grodi, R.; Bajracharya, C. Enhancing connectivity for communication and control in unmanned
aerial vehicle networks. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Radio and Wireless Symposium (RWS), San Diego,
CA, USA, 25–28 January 2015; pp. 200–202.
4. Rawat, D.B.; Ghafoor, K.Z. Smart Cities Cybersecurity and Privacy; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018.
5. Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Service Demand 2015–2035; U.S. Air Force: Bedford, MA, USA, 2013.
6. Hartmann, K.; Steup, C. The vulnerability of UAVs to cyber attacks-An approach to the risk assessment.
In Proceedings of the 2013 5th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon), Tallinn, Estonia,
4–7 June 2013; pp. 1–23.
7. Rani, C.; Modares, H.; Sriram, R.; Mikulski, D.; Lewis, F.L. Security of unmanned aerial vehicle systems
against cyber-physical attacks. J. Def. Model. Simul. 2016, 13, 331–342. [CrossRef]
8. Kim, A.; Wampler, B.; Goppert, J.; Hwang, I.; Aldridge, H. Cyber attack vulnerabilities analysis for unmanned
aerial vehicles. In Proceedings of the Infotech@Aerospace 2012, Garden Grove, CA, USA, 19–21 June 2012;
p. 2438.
9. Mount, M.; Quijano, E. Iraqi Insurgents Hacked Predator Drone Feeds, U.S. Official Indicates.
Avaliable online: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/12/17/drone.video.hacked/index.html (accessed on 18
December 2009).
10. Arthur, C. SkyGrabber: The $26 Software Used by Insurgents to Hack into US Drones. Guardian 2009, 17.
Avaliable online: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/dec/17/skygrabber-software-drones-
hacked (accessed on 17 December 2019).
11. Rawat, D.B.; Reddy, S.R. Software defined networking architecture, security and energy efficiency: A survey.
IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2017, 19, 1. [CrossRef]
12. Haleplidis, E.; Pentikousis, K.; Denazis, S.; Salim, J.H.; Meyer, D.; Koufopavlou, O. Software-Defined
Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture Terminology; Technical Report; Internet Research Task Force. 2015.
Available online: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7426 (accessed on 31 January 2015).
13. Wagner, W. Lightning Bugs and Other Reconnaissance Drones; Armed Forces Journal International: Springfield,
VA, USA, 1982.
14. Sanders, R. An Israeli Military Innovation: Uavs; Technical Report; Industrial College of the Armed Forces:
Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
15. Carr, E.B. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Examining the Safety, Security, Privacy and Regulatory Issues of Integration
into U.S. Airspace; National Centre for Policy Analysis (NCPA): Dallas, TX, USA, 2013.
16. Newcome, L.R. Unmanned Aviation: A Brief History of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston, VA, USA, 2004.
17. Mahmoud, S.; Mohamed, N. Collaborative UAVs cloud. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference
on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Orlando, FL, USA, 27–30 May 2014; pp. 365–373.
18. Jawhar, I.; Mohamed, N.; Al-Jaroodi, J.; Agrawal, D.P.; Zhang, S. Communication and networking of
UAV-based systems: Classification and associated architectures. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2017, 84, 93–108.
[CrossRef]
19. Oubbati, O.S.; Lakas, A.; Lagraa, N.; Yagoubi, M.B. UVAR: An intersection UAV-assisted VANET routing
protocol. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC),
Doha, Qatar, 3–6 April 2016; pp. 1–6.
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 23 of 25

20. Scherer, J.; Yahyanejad, S.; Hayat, S.; Yanmaz, E.; Andre, T.; Khan, A.; Vukadinovic, V.; Bettstetter, C.;
Hellwagner, H.; Rinner, B. An autonomous multi-UAV system for search and rescue. In Proceedings of the
First Workshop on Micro Aerial Vehicle Networks, Systems, and Applications for Civilian Use, Florence,
Italy, 18 May 2015; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 33–38.
21. Cumino, P.; Lobato Junior, W.; Tavares, T.; Santos, H.; Rosário, D.; Cerqueira, E.; Villas, L.; Gerla, M.
Cooperative UAV Scheme for Enhancing Video Transmission and Global Network Energy Efficiency. Sensors
2018, 18, 4155. [CrossRef]
22. Wei, S.; Ge, L.; Yu, W.; Chen, G.; Pham, K.; Blasch, E.; Shen, D.; Lu, C. Simulation study of unmanned
aerial vehicle communication networks addressing bandwidth disruptions. In Sensors and Systems for Space
Applications VII: International Society for Optics and Photonics; SPIE: Bellingham, WA, USA, 2014; Volume 9085.
23. Scott-Hayward, S.; O’Callaghan, G.; Sezer, S. SDN security: A survey. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE SDN
For Future Networks and Services (SDN4FNS), Trento, Italy, 11–13 November 2013; pp. 1–7.
24. Kreutz, D.; Ramos, F.M.; Verissimo, P.E.; Rothenberg, C.E.; Azodolmolky, S.; Uhlig, S. Software-defined
networking: A comprehensive survey. Proc. IEEE 2015, 103, 14–76. [CrossRef]
25. MacFarland, D.C.; Shue, C.A. The SDN shuffle: creating a moving-target defense using host-based
software-defined networking. In Proceedings of the Second ACM Workshop on Moving Target Defense,
Denver, CO, USA, 12 October 2015; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 37–41.
26. Nunes, B.A.A.; Mendonca, M.; Nguyen, X.N.; Obraczka, K.; Turletti, T. A survey of software-defined
networking: Past, present, and future of programmable networks. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2014,
16, 1617–1634. [CrossRef]
27. Jagadeesan, N.A.; Krishnamachari, B. Software-defined networking paradigms in wireless networks:
A survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 2015, 47, 27. [CrossRef]
28. Hadj, S.B.; Rekhis, S.; Boudriga, N.; Bagula, A. A cloud of UAVs for the Delivery of a Sink As A Service to
Terrestrial WSNs. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing
and Multi Media, Singapore, 28–30 November 2016; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 317–326.
29. Shin, S.; Xu, L.; Hong, S.; Gu, G. Enhancing network security through software defined networking (SDN).
In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 25th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks
(ICCCN), Waikoloa, HI, USA, 1–4 August 2016; pp. 1–9.
30. Shu, Z.; Wan, J.; Li, D.; Lin, J.; Vasilakos, A.V.; Imran, M. Security in software-defined networking: Threats
and countermeasures. Mob. Netw. Appl. 2016, 21, 764–776. [CrossRef]
31. Weinstein, S.B. SDN control in a combined sensor, information retrieval, and communications network
for dangerous environments. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Microwaves,
Antennas, Communications and Electronic Systems (COMCAS), Tel-Aviv, Israel, 13–15 November 2017;
pp. 1–5.
32. Caria, M.; Jukan, A.; Hoffmann, M. SDN partitioning: A centralized control plane for distributed routing
protocols. IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag. 2016, 13, 381–393. [CrossRef]
33. Liyanage, M.; Abro, A.B.; Ylianttila, M.; Gurtov, A. Opportunities and challenges of software-defined mobile
networks in network security. IEEE Secur. Priv. 2016, 14, 34–44. [CrossRef]
34. Shaghaghi, A.; Kaafar, M.A.; Buyya, R.; Jha, S. Software-Defined Network (SDN) Data Plane Security: Issues,
Solutions and Future Directions. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1804.00262.
35. Sasaki, T.; Pappas, C.; Lee, T.; Hoefler, T.; Perrig, A. SDNsec: Forwarding accountability for the SDN data
plane. In Proceedings of the 2016 25th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks
(ICCCN), Waikoloa, HI, USA, 1–4 August 2016; pp. 1–10.
36. Gupta, L.; Jain, R.; Vaszkun, G. Survey of important issues in UAV communication networks. IEEE Commun.
Surv. Tutor. 2016, 18, 1123–1152. [CrossRef]
37. Barritt, B.; Kichkaylo, T.; Mandke, K.; Zalcman, A.; Lin, V. Operating a UAV mesh & internet backhaul
network using temporospatial SDN. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT,
USA, 4–11 March 2017; pp. 1–7.
38. Mozaffari, M.; Saad, W.; Bennis, M.; Nam, Y.H.; Debbah, M. A tutorial on UAVs for wireless networks:
Applications, challenges, and open problems. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1803.00680.
39. Lee, S.; Yoon, C.; Lee, C.; Shin, S.; Yegneswaran, V.; Porras, P.A. DELTA: A Security Assessment Framework for
Software-Defined Networks; NDSS: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 24 of 25

40. Giotis, K.; Argyropoulos, C.; Androulidakis, G.; Kalogeras, D.; Maglaris, V. Combining OpenFlow and
sFlow for an effective and scalable anomaly detection and mitigation mechanism on SDN environments.
Comput. Netw. 2014, 62, 122–136. [CrossRef]
41. Mousavi, S.M.; St-Hilaire, M. Early detection of DDoS attacks against SDN controllers. In Proceedings of the
2015 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC), Garden Grove,
CA, USA, 16–19 February 2015; pp. 77–81.
42. Gillani, F.; Al-Shaer, E.; Duan, Q. In-design Resilient SDN Control Plane and Elastic Forwarding Against
Aggressive DDoS Attacks. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Workshop on Moving Target Defense, Toronto,
ON, Canada, 15 October 2018; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 80–89.
43. Wang, A.; Guo, Y.; Hao, F.; Lakshman, T.; Chen, S. Scotch: Elastically scaling up sdn control-plane
using vswitch based overlay. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM International on Conference on Emerging
Networking Experiments and Technologies, Sydney, Australia, 2–5 December 2014; ACM: New York, NY,
USA, 2014; pp. 403–414.
44. Ashraf, J.; Latif, S. Handling intrusion and DDoS attacks in Software Defined Networks using machine
learning techniques. In Proceedings of the 2014 National Software Engineering Conference, Rawalpindi,
Pakistan, 11–12 November 2014; pp. 55–60.
45. Kirichek, R.; Vladyko, A.; Paramonov, A.; Koucheryavy, A. Software-defined architecture for flying
ubiquitous sensor networking. In Proceedings of the 2017 19th International Conference on Advanced
Communication Technology (ICACT), Bongpyeong, Korea, 19–22 February 2017; pp. 158–162.
46. Secinti, G.; Darian, P.B.; Canberk, B.; Chowdhury, K.R. SDNs in the Sky: Robust End-to-End Connectivity
for Aerial Vehicular Networks. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2018, 56, 16–21. [CrossRef]
47. Bindra, N.; Sood, M. Is SDN the Real Solution to Security Threats in Networks? A Security Update on
Various SDN Models. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2016, 9. [CrossRef]
48. Conti, M.; Di Pietro, R.; Mancini, L.; Mei, A. Distributed detection of clone attacks in wireless sensor
networks. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2011, 8, 685–698. [CrossRef]
49. Roy, S.; Conti, M.; Setia, S.; Jajodia, S. Secure data aggregation in wireless sensor networks: Filtering out the
attacker’s impact. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 2014, 9, 681–694. [CrossRef]
50. Sriramulu, R.K. Constructing Dynamic Ad-hoc Emergency Networks using Software-Defined Wireless Mesh
Networks. Master’s Thesis, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, USA, 2018.
51. Afek, Y.; Bremler-Barr, A.; Shafir, L. Network anti-spoofing with SDN data plane. In Proceedings of the IEEE
Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM 2017), Atlanta, GA, USA, 1–4 May 2017; pp. 1–9.
52. Dharma, N.G.; Muthohar, M.F.; Prayuda, J.A.; Priagung, K.; Choi, D. Time-based DDoS detection and
mitigation for SDN controller. In Proceedings of the 2015 17th Asia-Pacific Network Operations and
Management Symposium (APNOMS), Busan, Korea, 19–21 August 2015; pp. 550–553.
53. Ali, A.; Cziva, R.; Jouët, S.; Pezaros, D.P. SDNFV-Based DDoS Detection and Remediation in Multi-tenant,
Virtualised Infrastructures. In Guide to Security in SDN and NFV; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017; pp. 171–196.
54. Pu, C. Jamming-Resilient Multipath Routing Protocol for Flying Ad Hoc Networks. IEEE Access 2018,
6, 68472–68486. [CrossRef]
55. Sliti, M.; Abdallah, W.; Boudriga, N. Jamming Attack Detection in Optical UAV Networks. In Proceedings
of the 2018 20th International Conference on Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON), Bucharest, Romania,
1–5 July 2018; pp. 1–5.
56. Conti, M.; Di Pietro, R.; Spognardi, A. Clone wars: Distributed detection of clone attacks in mobile WSNs.
J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 2014, 80, 654–669. [CrossRef]
57. Dong, M.; Ota, K.; Yang, L.T.; Liu, A.; Guo, M. LSCD: A low-storage clone detection protocol for
cyber-physical systems. IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 2016, 35, 712–723. [CrossRef]
58. Zheng, Z.; Liu, A.; Cai, L.X.; Chen, Z.; Shen, X.S. Energy and memory efficient clone detection in wireless
sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 2016, 15, 1130–1143. [CrossRef]
59. Lal, A.; Selvakumar, J. Secure low-storage clone detection technique for wireless sensor networks.
In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference of Electronics, Communication and Aerospace
Technology (ICECA), Coimbatore, India, 20–22 April 2017; Volume 1, pp. 669–672.
60. Aalsalem, M.Y.; Khan, W.Z.; Saad, N.; Hossain, M.S.; Atiquzzaman, M.; Khan, M.K. A new random walk for
replica detection in WSNs. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0158072. [CrossRef]
Electronics 2019, 8, 1468 25 of 25

61. McKeown, N.; Anderson, T.; Balakrishnan, H.; Parulkar, G.; Peterson, L.; Rexford, J.; Shenker, S.; Turner, J.
OpenFlow: Enabling innovation in campus networks. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 2008,
38, 69–74. [CrossRef]
62. Sayeed, M.A.; Sayeed, M.A.; Saxena, S. Intrusion detection system based on Software Defined Network
firewall. In Proceedings of the 2015 1st International Conference on Next Generation Computing
Technologies (NGCT), Dehradun, India, 4–5 September 2015; pp. 379–382.
63. Toso, G.; Munaretto, D.; Conti, M.; Zorzi, M. Attack resilient underwater networks through software defined
networking. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Underwater Networks & Systems, Rome,
Italy, 12–14 November 2014; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2014; p. 44.
64. Noble, D.; Bhandari, S. Neural network based nonlinear model reference adaptive controller for an
unmanned aerial vehicle. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (ICUAS), Miami, FL, USA, 13–16 June 2017; pp. 94–103.
65. Yapp, J.; Seker, R.; Babiceanu, R. UAV as a Service: A Network Simulation Environment to Identify
Performance and Security Issues for Commercial UAVs in a Coordinated, Cooperative Environment.
In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Modelling and Simulation for Autonomous Systems, Rome, Italy,
15–16 June 2016; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 347–355.
66. Mishra, V.; Verma, D.; Williams, C. Leveraging sdn for cyber situational awareness in coalition tactical
networks. In Proceedings of the IST-148 Meeting, Sofia, Bulgaria, 3–4 October 2016; pp. 3–4.
67. White, K.J.; Denney, E.; Knudson, M.D.; Mamerides, A.K.; Pezaros, D.P. A programmable SDN+ NFV-based
architecture for uav telemetry monitoring. In Proceedings of the 2017 14th IEEE Annual Consumer
Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 8–11 January 2017; pp. 522–527.
68. Mishra, V.K.; Verma, D.C.; Williams, C. Improving Security in Coalition Tactical Environments Using an
SDN Approach. In Guide to Security in SDN and NFV; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 273–298.
69. Kumar, R.; Sayeed, M.A.; Sharma, V.; You, I. An SDN-Based Secure Mobility Model for UAV-Ground
Communications. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Mobile Internet Security, Jeju Island, Korea,
19–22 October 2017; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 169–179.
70. Ur Rahman, S.; Kim, G.H.; Cho, Y.Z.; Khan, A. Deployment of an SDN-based UAV network: Controller
placement and tradeoff between control overhead and delay. In Proceedings of the 2017 International
Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC), Jeju, Korea, 18–20 October
2017; pp. 1290–1292.
71. Moradi, M. Software-Driven and Virtualized Architectures for Scalable 5G Networks. Ph.D. Thesis,
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2018.
72. Zhao, Q.; Du, P.; Gerla, M.; Brown, A.J.; Kim, J.H. Software Defined Multi-Path TCP Solution for Mobile
Wireless Tactical Networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM
2018), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 29–31 October 2018; pp. 1–9.
73. Li, Z.; Lu, Y.; Shi, Y.; Wang, Z.; Qiao, W.; Liu, Y. A Dyna-Q-Based Solution for UAV Networks Against Smart
Jamming Attacks. Symmetry 2019, 11, 617. [CrossRef]
74. Sedjelmaci, H.; Senouci, S.M.; Ansari, N. A hierarchical detection and response system to enhance security
against lethal cyber-attacks in UAV networks. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. Syst. 2018, 48, 1594–1606.
[CrossRef]
75. Secinti, G.; Darian, P.B.; Canberk, B.; Chowdhury, K.R. Resilient end-to-end connectivity for software defined
unmanned aerial vehicular networks. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 28th Annual International Symposium
on Personal, Indoor, and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), Montreal, QC, Canada, 8–13 October
2017; pp. 1–5.

c 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).